{
  "id": 1872664,
  "name": "Thomas DUNN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunn v. State",
  "decision_date": "1987-01-26",
  "docket_number": "CR 86-146",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "134",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "291 Ark. 131"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "722 S.W.2d 595"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "715 S.W.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1875437
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0570-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875437,
        1875453
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0570-02",
        "/ark/289/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "717 S.W.2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1873673,
        1873755
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0129-01",
        "/ark/290/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873755
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 U.S. 68",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11298833
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/470/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4080,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.936,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4158257560785845e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6480115249962449
    },
    "sha256": "95846976b33cdc920cefe5d8a587e75aebe079b6abe9f4c5e4ca82663fc25ec3",
    "simhash": "1:0e8eef0cff3a56ab",
    "word_count": 676
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:32.108459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas DUNN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nIn this criminal case, appellant, an indigent, was convicted of burglary, theft of property, and being a felon in possession of firearms. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, receiving a total of fifty years imprisonment. He urges one point for reversal: the trial court erred in failing to order the State to provide him with an independent psychiatrist. To support his argument, appellant cites Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). We disagree and, therefore, affirm.\nThe majority Court in Ake held that, when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist\u2019s assistance on this issue, if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one. We have considered the rule in Ake in two recent cases, White v. State, 290 Ark. 130, 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986) and Wall v. State, 289 Ark. 570, 715 S.W.2d 208 (1986), and in each, we affirmed the trial court\u2019s finding that the appellant failed to make an ex parte showing that his sanity would be a serious issue at trial.\nHere, appellant argues he met his ex parte-threshold showing that sanity would be an issue, entitling him to the assistance of an independent psychiatrist, by his (1) personal letter to the trial judge reflecting he had been treated for mental illness which caused his illegal behavior; (2) notice of intent to raise mental disease or defect as a defense; and (3) motion to invoke the constitutional right enunciated in Ake.\nFirst, we note that appellant was given a psychiatric examination-by the State Hospital; however, he still perceives under Ake that he is entitled to the assistance of a psychiatrist who is unaffiliated with the state or county. We believe he misinterprets Ake. As we pointed out in Wall v. State, supra, the Supreme Court in Ake emphasized the risk of error, absent a psychiatric examination, \u201cwhen the defendant\u2019s mental condition is seriously in question.\u201d Here, as was the situation in Wall, the trial court ordered, upon appellant\u2019s raising the defense of mental disease or defect, the State Hospital to evaluate appellant\u2019s capacity to assist in his defense and to determine the state of his sanity on the date the alleged offense occurred. That evaluation, under Arkansas law, is required by a defendant merely filing a notice that he intends to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect or that he will put in issue his fitness to proceed. See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-605 (Repl. 1977). We recounted in Wall that, under our prior cases, Wall\u2019s rights were adequately protected by the examination at the State Hospital, an institution which has no part in the prosecution of criminals. Wall, supra, at 289. See also Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-1301 (Supp. 1985).\nThe Oklahoma law challenged in Ake simply fell short of safeguards assured a defendant under Arkansas law. The trial court here, acting pursuant to \u00a7 41-605, ordered the appellant evaluated by the State Hospital which diagnosed the appellant as suffering from episodic-alcohol abuse and an antisocial personality disorder. The hospital further reported that, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, appellant possessed the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.\nWe hold the appellant\u2019s constitutional rights were duly protected in accordance with the dictates of Ake.\nAccordingly, we affirm.\nA concurring opinion expressed the Court\u2019s holding should not be read to reach noncapital cases, and a dissent was entered indicating one Justice\u2019s view that he would limit the rule to capital cases.\nHis letter related numerous instances when he was arrested, charged with crimes, examined and declared mentally ill, but the trial courts, he claimed, refused in each case to give him psychiatric help.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry C. Morris, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas DUNN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 86-146\n722 S.W.2d 595\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 26, 1987\nHenry C. Morris, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 155,
  "last_page_order": 158
}